-  -.a  s~\ 


» 


¥tt 


W^. 


q/     LP    ^lA^-^r-r-er^/ 


PRINCETON,     N.     J 


W///^/^  X\.\\\\JvrOA\A. 


Divis, 
Section  ...  . 


Number, 


4 


LETTER 


ADDRESSED  TO 


R.   H.   BISHOP,  D.   D., 


P  R  E  S  I  D  E  N  T  O  F    MIAMI     UNIVERSITY, 


ON   THE    SUBJECT   OF    HIS 


"PLEA    FOR    UNITED    CHRISTIAN    ACTION;" 


ADDRESSED  PARTrCULAHLY   TO 


PRESBYTERIANS  ; 


BY  J.  L.  WILSON. 


CINCINNATI: 

LODGE,    L'HOMMEDIEU    &     CO.,    PRINTERS. 

1835. 


Cincinnati,  February  5,  1835. 


THE  REV.  ROBERT  H.  BISHOP,  D.  D., 

President  of  Miami  University. 

Dear  Sir, 

To  me  it  is  a  subject  of  no  small  regret,  that  any  thing  has 
taken  place,  in  the  Presbyterian  church,  to  interrupt  the  harmony 
of  those,  who  ought  "to  speak  and  mind  the  same  things."  It 
is  both  mortifying  and  alarming  to  know,  that  among  those,  who 
profess  an  adherence  to  the  same  system  of  faith,  and  order  of 
worship,  differences  of  opinion  and  practice  prevail  to  such  an 
extent  as  to  agitate  the  Church  and  cause  the  world  to  stumble. 
You  cannot  be  insensible  that  the  contradictory  opinions  preach- 
ed and  published,  among  us,  for  several  years,  and  the  diversity 
of  practice,  which  prevails,  have  brought  the  Presbyterian  Church 
to  a  solemn  crisis! 

At  such  a  time,  as  this,  when  a  change  must  soon  take  place 
for  the  better  or  woise,  all  distinguished  men,  in  our  denomina- 
tion, who,  like  yourself,  are  elevated  to  the  highest  stations  of 
influence,  seem  bound  to  state,  in  unequivocal  terms,  the  ground 
on  which  they  stand,  and  the  course  they  intend  to  pursue. 
Other  classes  of  society  look  up  to  them  for  opinions,  and  are  led, 
right  or  wrong,  according  as  the  guides  they  follow  are  correct 
or  erroneous. 

My  venerable  friend,  Dr.  Bishop,  has  not  been  backward  in 
shewing  the  foundation  which  he  occupies;  and  I  hope  to  give 
no  offence  while  I  examine  whether  it  be  rock  or  sand. 

Men  in  deliberative  bodies,  greatly  excited  by  agitating  ques-' 
tions,  may  say  and  do  things  which  ought  not  to  be  considered 
tests  of  their  abiding  principles.  But  when  a  man  of  mature  age, 
under  the  responsibilities  of  ministerial  office,  and  clothed  with 
all  the  influence  of  presidential  eminence,  preaches  a  sermon,  "by 
special  appointment,"  and  gives  it  to  the  public,  through  the 
press,  in  more  than  one  edition,  we  must  suppose  that  he  in- 
tends it  as  a  test  of  his  orthodoxy,  and  that  he  desires  the  church 
to  be  formed  upon  this  model  as  far  as  the  subject  of  the  dis- 
course extends.  Such,  sir,  is  your  Sermon  entitled  "A  Plea  for 
United  Christian  Action." 


To  examine  this  sermon  as  a  reviewer,  is  not  my  object.  But 
as  I  consider  the  principles  advanced,  and  plans  recommended, 
hostile  to  the  interests  of  the  Church  of  God,  and  particularly  to 
that  branch  of  his  church,  to  which  we  both  profess  to  belong,  I 
shall  frankly  call  your  attention  to  some  things  which  you  may 
possibly  review  with  profit  to  yourself  and  future  generations. 
The  title  of  your  sermon,  in  my  opinion,  ought  to  be  changed. 
Is  it  not  apleafor  united  action  with  Neiv  England  Divines?  If 
this  be  not  the  plea,  I  am  utterly  at  a  loss  to  understand  it.  For 
New  England  divines,  who  act  consistently  with  their  avowed 
principles,  and  meddle  not  with  the  affairs  of  others,  I  cherish  a 
high  respect.  If  a  man  should  profess  to  be  a  Presbyterian,  and 
then  should  speak  and  act  agreeably  to  that  profession,  I  care  not 
whether  he  is  from  New  England  or  Old  England.  There  are 
men  from  New  England,  who  uniformly  act  correctly  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  there  are  men  from 
Scotland,  who  as  uniformly  act  the  other  way.  In  proposing 
then  to  change  the  title  of  your  sermon,  no  disrespect  is  intended 
to  New  England  Divines.  Ifamanbe  asoundPresbyterian,he  will 
be  sure  to  enjoy  united  christian  action  with  men  of  the  same 
stamp,  whether  they  be  educated  at  New  Haven  or  Princeton. 
And  yet  I  am  not  so  indifferent  with  regard  to  the  place  or  school, 
from  which  a  man  comes,  as  you  represent  our  fathers  to  have 
been.  You  say,  in  your  sermon,  page  10,  "The  inquiry  from 
what  country,  or  from  what  school,  or  from  what  particular 
church  a  man  came,  was  with  them  an  inferior  question." 
Now,  sir,  the  records  of  the  first  Presbyteries,  and  the 
first  Synod  organized  in  America;  and  the  standing  rules  of 
our  church,  in  regard  to  foreign  ministers,  prove  directly  the  re- 
verse. The  history  of  William  Tennent,  the  venerable  founder 
of  "the  Log  College"  at  Neshamony,  contradicts  your  state- 
ment. He  was  admitted  into  the  Presbyterian  Church  as  early 
as  1718,  and  his  admission  was  attended  with  all  the  caution 
and  solemnity  of  synodical  action.  The  reasons  are  recorded  in 
the  Synodical  Book,  as  the  fathers  said — ad  futuram  rei  memo- 
riam — for  the  benefit  of  posterity.  But  it  appears  that  some 
men  have  profited  nothing  by  their  memento! 

The  Tennents,  whom  you  mention  in  your  sermon,  were  the 
sons  of  this  venerable  William  Tennent,  and  of  course  could 
not  be  among  the  fathers  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  North 
America,  as  you  have  stated  or  represented  them.  But  you  have 
said  correctly,  p.  9:  "It  was  the  peculiar  happiness  of  the  Ten- 
nents, and  the'Blairs,andof  Davies,and  Witherspoon — that  they 
understood  well — the  essential  features  of  genuine  Presbyterian- 
ism" —  and  permit  me  to  finish  your  sentence  by  adding — it  was 
their  "peculiar  happiness"  to  act  accordingly.  If  they  found  a 
man  who  was  trust-worthy,  they  enjoyed  with  him  "united 
christian  action,"  and  if  they  found  a  man  unsound  and  unfaith- 
ful, they  dismissed  him,  without  respect  to  school  or  country. 


They  endeavored  to  keep  out  heresy,  and  to-  put  out  those  who 
crept  it  in;  but  they  were  total  strangers  to  the  modern  policy  of 
inviting  it  in,  and  fencing  it  in,  and  denouncing  those  who  en- 
deavor to  keep  it  out;  and  then  preaching  and  publishing  "A  plea 
for  united  christian  action." 

You  say,  p.  9,  "The  leading  features  of  American  Presbyteri- 
anism  are  few  and  simple;"  and  on  p.  10,  you  state  that  one  of 
"the  great  questions"  asked  by  the  fathers,  in  relation  to  any  ap- 
plicant for  admission  to  be — "does  he  agree  with  us  substantially 
in  our  view  of  divine  truth?"  If  so,  you  add,  "We  leave  him  to 
apply  and  act  out  these  few  general  rules  in  his  own  way." 

Who  can  help  being  "startled"  at  the  word  "substantially,"  in 
connection  with  the  phrase,  "we  leave  him  to  apply  and  act  out 
these  few  general  principles  in  his  own  wTay" — when  we  remem- 
ber the  plea  of  the  New  Haven  professors — "for  substance  of 
doctrine" — and  their  rejection,  of  what  they  call  secondary  prin- 
ciples or  explanations?  You  tell  us,  p.  9,  "Dr.  Rogers,  of  New 
York,  found  it  extremely  difficult  to  make  a  Scotchman  under- 
stand what  American  Presbyterianism  was."  If  that  venerable 
man  was  now  living,  he  would  find  the  same  difficulty  still. 

But  to  return  to  your  "plea  for  New  England  preachers."  You 
say,  p.  11 — "The  preachers  from  New  England  formed  a  large 
portion  of  the  first  Presbyteries  and  the  first  Synod  which  were 
formed  in  the  English  colonies." 

Was  it  so?  Dr.  Miller  has  told  us,  that,  "The  Presbytery 
of  Philadelphia  was  constituted  in  1 704,  and  very  soon  after, 
some  who  had  been  bred  Congregationalists,  in  South  Britain, 
or  in  New  England,  acceded  to  the  new  body,  and  consented 
to  bear  the  name  and  act  under  the  order  of  Presbyterians.  In 
1716,  the  number  of  ministers  had  increased  so  far,  chiefly  by 
emigrants  from  Europe,  that  they  distributed  themselves  into 
four  Presbyteries — and  erected  a  Synod." 

The  records  of  the  Philadelphia  Presbytery,  shew  that  in  1707, 
three  years  after  their  organization,  they  had  one  man  and  one 
only,  from  New  England,  the  other  members  were  Scotch  and 
Irish  Presbyterians.  What  becomes,  then,  of  your  "large  pro- 
portion"? But  did  this  one  man,  in  the  Presbytery  of  Philadel- 
phia act  consistently  with  his  pledge  and  give  the  Presbytery 
no  trouble?  Let  the  brief  history  of  Jedediah  Andrews  answer 
the  question. 

Did  those  Congregationalists,  who,  according  to  Dr.  Miller, 
"Consented  to  bear  the  name  and  act  under  the  order  and  dis- 
cipline of  Presbyterians"  redeem  their  pledge?  Did  preachers 
from  New  England  promote  or  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  when  admitted  into  her  judicatories?  Let  the 
history  of  Wade  and  Peniberton,  and  the  records  of  the  first 
Synod  answer.  And  why,  sir,  did  they  disturb  the  peace  of  the 
Church?  Simply  because  the  Presbyterians  of  that  day  would 
not  "leave  them  to  apply  and  act  out  their  few  general  rules  in 
their  own  way." 


Permit  me  here  to  ask,  was  it  to  promote  truth  or  for  popular 
effect  that  you  made  the  following  statement,  p.  11,  12:  "If  we 
could  this  day,  tear  from  our  bosom,  all  who  are  of  New  Eng- 
land birth,  or  of  New  England  descent,  we  would  exhibit  a  map 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  North  America,  on  a  very  small 
scale." 

Who,  sir,  ever  thought  of  such  an  indiscriminate  tearing  out? 
I  apprehend  when  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  purged  from  her 
present  corruptions,  so  as  "to  keep  the  unity  of  the  spirit  in  the 
bonds  of  peace,"  many  "of  New  England  birth  and  New  Eng- 
land descent  will  remain,  in  her  purified  bosom,  and  not  a  few, 
from  other  quarters,  will  be  cast  out.  And  whether  the  map 
then,  shall  be  small  or  great,  will  be  a  matter  of  no  consequence 
compared  with  her  purity,  peace,  and  ultimate  prosperity. 

Hence,  all  that  you  have  said,  p.  12,  13,  about  those  excellent 
men,  Mills,  Schermerhorn  and  Smith,  can  be  looked  upon  in  no 
other  light  than  an  ad  captandum  vulgus — 1\  rhetorical  fraud  on 
the  popular  ear.  If  only  the  ear  of  the  multitude  was  cheated 
it  would  be  of  little  consequence,  but  such  an  appeal  in  such  a 
sermon  commits  a  fraud  upon  the  hearts  of  thousands. 

How  impressive  are  the  Apostle's  words,  and  what  a  warning 
ought  they  to  be  to  you  and  me,  "By  good  words  and  fair 
speeches  they  deceive  the  hearts  of  the  simple."  Rom.  xvi.  17, 
18. 

You  say,  p.  6,  "As  a  church,  we  have  been  threatened,  during 
the  last  two  years,  with  a  division  or  separation;"  and  you  go  on 
to  inquire  whether  there  are  to  be  two  or  twenty  divisions — 
whether  they  are  to  be  east  or  west,  north  or  south — and  you 
give  up,  in  despair,  the  idea  of  "a  separation  upon  any  national 
plan;"  and  then  you  ask,  p.  7,  "When  these  divisions  shall  be 
made,  what  will  be  the  advantages  secured?"  Ought  you  not 
rather  to  have  said  to  your  audience,  "We,  as  a  church,  are  di- 
vided. The  line  is  drawn  to  every  point  of  the  compass.  Not 
the  compass  of  the  surveyor  nor  the  compass  of  the  mariner,  but 
the  elective  affinity  compass,  which  marks  the  lines  of  our  ecclesi- 
astical earth.  By  this  new  invention  our  churches  are  cut  up  into 
a  thousand  sections — some  of  our  Presbyteries,  and  one  Synod 
are  untramelled  by  geographical  lines — they  are  left  to  act  out 
their  few  substantial  principles  in  their  own  icay.  Diversity  of 
opinions  and  diversity  of  plans,  are  inseparable  from  the  nature 
of  man.  Every  man,  who  thinks  for  himself,  must  have  some 
plans  peculiarly  his  own.  In  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Cincin- 
nati, Hamilton,  Zanesville,  Indianapolis,  and  a  thousand  other 
places,  these  "elective  affinity"  divisions  exist.  They  are  sanc- 
tioned by  the  highest  judicatories  of  our  church,  and  surely  when 
we  are  so  divided  there  is  nothing  to  hinder  us  from  "united 
christian  action."  It  appears  to  me,  that,  in  some  such  strain 
as  this  you  ought  to  have  addressed  the  people,  instead  of  saying, 
"We  have  been  threatened  with  a  division."     You  have  not  told 


us  from  what  quarter  the  threat  came;  but  you  make  it  plain 
enough,  that  you  are  opposed  to  a  "separation,"  and  you  think 
"the  God  of  our  fathers  is  hedging  up  our  way  with  thorns,  that 
we  cannot  pass, "  p.  7.  It  may  be  right,  like  Job,  to  ascribe  the 
evils  with  which  we  are  afflicted  to  the  Lord,  though  the  devil 
may  bring  them.  And  now  in  the  day  of  our  perplexity,  your 
thorns  reminds  me  of  the  men  who  have  corrupted  our  Church — 
"the  best  of  them  is  a  brier,  the  most  upright  is  sharper  than  a 
thorn  hedge." 

Page  7,  you  ask  "In  what  page  of  the  history  of  the  Church 
have  we  any  proof  that  separation  or  division  has  been  among 
the  means  which  God  has  blessed  for  the  building  up  of  the 
kingdom  of  his  Son." 

I  answer,  we  have  the  proof  m  almost,  every  "page  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  Church."  The  merest  tyro  in  ecclesiastical  history, 
can  point  for  proof  to  the  question  of  Moses,  "Who  is  on  the 
Lord's  side?"  Exo.  32 — to  the  history  of  Korah,Num.  16 — to  the 
reduction  of  the  army  of  Gideon  from  thirty-two  thousand  to 
three  hundred  men,  Judj.  vii — to  the  command  of  Christ,  "Come 
out  of  her  my  people" — in  short,  to  the  whole  history  of  the  Ref- 
ormation. As  long  as  there  is  enmity  between  the  seed  of  the 
woman  and  the  seed  of  the  serpent,  and  the  seed  of  the  serpent 
can  creep  into  the  church,  so  long  God  will  bless  "division  and 
separation  among  the  means  for  the  building  up  of  the  kingdom 
of  his  Son." 

You  seem  to  take  the  broad  ground  that  "all  the  professed 
people  of  God"  must  be  united — that  according  to  "the  spirit  of 
freedom  and  inquiry  and  independence,"  every  man  must  have 
his  own  way  of  expressing  his  views,  and  his  own  plan  of  ope- 
ration. This  coincides  precisely  with  a  plan  disclosed  to  me  by 
another  Dr.  of  the  West,  in  1832 — that  no  Confession  of  Faith 
should  contain  more  than  three  articles,  and  all  pulpits  must  be 
common ! 

To  sustain  yourself  on  this  broad  ground,  you  endeavor  to 
make  us  believe,  p.  19,  "That  Paul  neither  recommended  a  sepa- 
ration nor  enjoined  discipline  in  the  Corinthian  church,  because 
"the  whole  church  was  too  much  infected  with  the  evil" — of  di- 
visions and  schims,  and  abuse  of  the  Lord's  supper,  to  be  ca- 
pable of  exercising  discipline.  If  Paul  neither  recommended  a 
"separation"  nor  "enjoined  discipline"  in  the  church  at  Corinth, 
what  is  the  meaning  of  such  passages  as  these — "Do  not  ye 
judge  them  that  are  within? — To  deliver  such  an  one  unto  Sa- 
tan for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh — Put  away  from  among  your- 
selves that  wicked  person — With  such  an  one  not  to  keep  com- 
pany— no,  not  to  eat — Purge  out  the  old  leaven  that  ye  may  be 
a  new  lump."  Will  you  tell  me  this  "separation" — this  "discip- 
line" related  to  immorality  in  practice?  I  grant  it.  But  was 
there  no  discipline  in  relation  to  immorality  in  principle?  What 
then  is  meant  by  these  passages? — "For  there  must  be  also  here- 


sies  among  you,  that  they  which  are  approved  may  be  made  mani- 
fest among  you" — "In  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses  shall 
every  word  be  established — I  write  to  them  which   heretofore 
have   sinned,  and   to   all    others,   that,   if  I  come  again,  I  will 
not  spare — for  we  can  do  nothing  against  the  truth  but  for  the 
truth. — I  write  these  things  being   absent,  lest  being   present  I 
should  use  sharpness.'1''     Use  sharpness!  On  whom?  Certainly  on 
the  rulers !     They  had   excommunicated   the  fornicator.     For 
this  they  were  commended.     But  they  had  not  expelled   those 
who  caused  "debates,  swellings  and  tumults" — and   for  this  de- 
linquency the  Apostle  threatens  them.     "There  must  be  heresies 
that  they  which  are  approved  may  be  made  manifest."     But  how 
can  the  approved  be  made  manifest  without  the  condemnation  and 
excision  of  heretics?     And  yet  you  have  made  thousands  believe, 
if  they  can  believe  you,  that  there  was  no  discipline  enjoined,  no 
separation  recommended.  Nay,  more,  that  the  Corinthian  church 
was  so  corrupted  that  she  was   incapable   of  exercising  discip- 
line !     And  you  have  applied  this  to  the  present  state  of  the  Pres- 
byterian church,  and  put  in  your  "Plea  for  united  christian  ac- 
tion," when  our  church,  according  to  your  own  shewing,  is  so 
afflicted  with  "divisions  and  schisms,"  that  discipline   is  at  an 
end!     This  solves  an  ecclesiastical  phenomenon,  which  no  inge- 
nuity has  before  been  able   to  explain — namely,  that  you,  and 
many  others,  have  for  several  years,  set  your  faces  against  all 
discipline  for  heresy !     You  can    pronounce,  as  you  did,  in  the 
Synod  of  Cincinnati,  that  a  trial  sermon  is  not  the  Gospel,  and 
then  vote  to  sustain  the  ordination  of  the  man  who  preached  and 
published  it,  and  held  on  tenaciously  to  all  the  errors  it  contained! 
I  am  constrained  to  judge  of  men  not  from  what  they  profess, 
but  from  the  scale  into  which  they  cast  their  influence.     And  if 
your  influence  has  not  been  in  the  scale  of  error  and  misrule,  in 
the  Presbyterian  church  for  the  last  three  years,  then  I  confess 
that  my  senses  have  deceived  me. 

You  say,  p.  1 8,  "We  are  not  more  divided  in  any  of  the  lead- 
ing doctrines  of  the  Westminister  Confession  of  Faith,  than  the 
fathers  of  that  age  themselves  were.  Nor  have  we  any  reason 
to  believe  that  the  Divines  of  the  Assembly  themselves,  in  their 
final  vote  upon  the  most  of  the  articles  in  the  confession,  were 
agreed,  upon  any  other  principle,  than  the  principle  of  comprom- 
ise.'''' Agreeably  to  this,  you  represent  "Presbyterianism  like  all 
other  isms — when  used  in  controversy — very  vague  and  equivo- 
cal and  ambiguous,"  p.  8,  9. 

I  have  been  so  foolish  as  to  believe  that  Presbyterianism,  as 
set  forth  in  our  standards  was  not  like  other  isms,  "vague,  equivo- 
cal, and  ambiguous,''''  but  that  it  contained  "a  well  defined  system  of 
truth  and  order;"  even  "the  system  taught  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures." Nor  have  your  statements  about  Rogers,  and  Owen, and 
Baxter,  led  me  out  of  this  foolish  belief! 


Has  Dr.  Bishop  yet  to  learn  that  the  Assembly  of  Divines  did 
not  meet  of  their  own  accord — that  they  were  permitted  to  dis- 
cuss no  subject  but  what  was  proposed  to  them  by  Parliament — 
that  they  were  carefully  watched  by  Lords  and  Commons,  to 
see  that  they  did  not  transcend  their  commission — that  they  sat 
long  and  carefully  investigated  every  subject  committed  to  their 
consideration — that  when  they  gave  "their  final  vote"  upon  each 
article — they  gave  thatvote  upon  principle,  and  not  upon  comprom- 
ise— that  they  were  all  at  liberty  when  their  labors  were  ended, 
and  the  Assembly  was  dissolved,  to  adopt  the  Confesson  of  Faith, 
Catechisms  and  Government,  or  not,  as  they  pleased — and  that 
Owen,  and  Baxter,  and  Usher,  and  many  others  never  adopted 
the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  church?  Why,  sir,  do  you  a- 
muse  yourself  and  deceive  your  hearers,  by  illustrations  drawn 
from  the  theological  differences  of  such  men? 

To  shew  that  there  was  no  compromise  in  the  votes  of  the  As- 
sembly of  Divines,  I  need  only  cite  one  or  two  cases.  The  As- 
sembly were  unanimously  of  opinion  that  "Baptism  is  rightly 
administered  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  water  upon  the  person." 
But  some  members  thought  that  dipping  or  immersion  ought  to 
be  allowed  as  "a  mode  of  Baptism."  On  this  subject  the  Assem- 
bly were  divided,  and  the  moderator  gave  the  casting -vote 
against  immersion.  They  all  agreed  that  "pouring  or  sprink- 
ling" was  right.  But  24  out  49  thought  immersion  might  be 
allowed  as  "a  mode  of  baptism."  When  they  were  so  equally 
divided  upon  "a  mode"  of  an  external  ordinance,  and  no  com- 
promise could  be  had — and  when  the  majority  inserted  in  the 
book  that  "clipping  the  person  in  water  is  not  necessary,"  but 
that  "baptism  as  ordained  by  Christ  is  the  washing  with  water  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring  water  upon  the  person,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  &c." — can  any  sober  minded  man  believe  they  would 
compromise  the  essential  truths  of  salvation? 

Take  another  case.  The  Assembly  of  Divines,  of  Westmin- 
ister, was,  at  first,  composed  of  Episcopalians,  Erastians,  Inde- 
pendents and  Presbyterians.  I  know  not  that  any  of  the  Ana- 
baptists, Neonomians,  or  Antinomians  were  members.  The  Par- 
liament sent  an  order  "that  the  Assembly  of  Divines  and  others, 
should  forthwith  confer,  and  treat  among  themselves,  of  such  a 
discipline  and  government  as  may  be  most  agreeable  to  God's 
Holy  Word — and  to  deliver  their  advice  touching  the  same,  to 
both  Houses  of  Parliament,  with  all  convenient  speed."  A  plan 
was  proposed,  in  order  to  unite  all  parties,  namely — that  every 
bishop  should  be  independent,  and  that  synods  and  councils 
should  be  for  concord  and  not  for  government.  Abp.  Usher  was 
agreed  to  this  plan.  But  no  compromise  could  be  obtained.  The 
Presbyterial  form  of  church  government  was  adopted.  I  find 
no  case  of  compromise,  but  in  regard  to  the  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant.  The  Scots'  commissioners  were  instructed  "to  pro- 
mote the  extirpation  of  popery,  prelacy,  heresy,  schisms,  scep- 

B 


10 

ticism  and  idolatry,  and  to  endeavor  an  union  between  the  two 
kingdoms,  in  one  Confession  of  Faith,  one  form  of  Church  Gov- 
ernment, and  one  Directory  of  worship." 

The  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  was  to  pave  the  way  for 
all  this,  and  was  to  be  considered  the  safeguard  of  religion  and 
liberty.  This  league  was  adopted  in  Scotland,  none  opposing  it 
but  the  king's  commissioners.  When  it  was  presented  to  the 
two  Houses  of  Parliament,  they  referred  it  to  the  Assembly  of 
Divines,  where  it  met  with  opposition. 

"Dr.  Featly  declared  he  durst  not  abjure  prelacy  absolutely, 
because  he  had  sworn  to  obey  his  Bishop  in  all  things  lawful  and 
honest,  and  therefore  proposed  to  qualify  the  second  article  thus: 
'I  will  endeavor  the  extirpation  of  Popery,  and  all  anti-christian, 
tyrannical,  or  independent  Prelacy ;'  but  it  was  carried  against 
him.  Dr.  Burgess  objected  to  several  articles,  and  was  not  with- 
out some  difficulty  persuaded  to  subscribe,  after  he  had  been 
suspended."  This  looks  very  much  like  the  days  of  com- 
promise, does  it  not?  Yet,  there  was  a  compromise. 
Mr.  Gataker,  and  many  others,  declared  for  primitive 
episcopacy,  or  for  one  stated  president,  with  his  presbyters 
to  govern  every  church,  and  refused  to  subscribe  till  a  pa- 
renthesis was  inserted,  declaring  what  sort  of  prelacy  was  to 
be  abjured. 

The  Scots,  who  had  been  introduced  into  the  Assembly,  were 
for  abjuring  episoopacy  as  simply  unlawful,  but  the  English  Di- 
vines were  generally  against  it.  The  English  pressed  chiefly 
for  a  civil  League,  but  the  Scots  would  have  a  religious  one,  to 
which  the  English  were  obliged  to  yield,  taking  care  at  the  same 
time,  to  leave  a  door  open  for  a  latitude  of  interpretation.  Here 
was  a  compromise.  And  what  was  this  door  of  "latitude  of  in- 
terpretation?" It  was  this:  The  English  inserted  the  phrase,  "of 
reforming  according  to  the  word  of  God;"  by  which  they  thought 
themselves  secure  from  the  Inroads  of  Presbytery.  The  Scots 
inserted  the  words  "according  to  the  practice  of  the  best  re- 
formed churches,"  in  which  they  were  confident  their  discipline 
must  be  included.  Here  was  a  compromise  from  necessity.  The 
English  were  obliged  to  adopt  a  religious  League  and  Covenant, 
or  not  obtain  the  assistance  of  the  Scots  in  a  war  which  they 
were  carrying  on  in  defence  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  As 
your  reading  is  much  more  extensive  and  minute  than  mine,  I  beg 
you  to  point  out  the  instances  where  compromises  were  made, 
and  a  latitude  of  interpretation  allowed  on  points  of  doctrine.  I 
believe  it  will  be  a  difficult  task  for  you,  or  any  member  of  the 
New  School,  to  do  this.  And  if  this  be  not  done,  I  hope  to  hear 
no  more  about  compromising  the  truths  of  God. 

Upon  what,  I  consider  a  groundless  assertion,  with  regard  to 
compromise,  in  the  Westminister  Assembly,  you  bund  the  follow- 
ing proposition,  p.  1 8,  namely: 

"An  approximation  towards  unity  of  opinion  as  to  the  best 
modes  of  expressing  our  individual  views  of  Divine  truth,  is  all 


11 

that  ever  can  be  obtained  in  our  adherence  to  a  public  creed." 
Then  I  affirm  that  "approximation"  can  be  obtained  without  any 
"public  creed."  Quod  erat  demonstrandum.  Away  with  all 
public  creeds!  "Approximation  towards  unity  of  opinion" can 
be  obtained  by  adherence  to  the  Bible,  as  the  standard  of  our 
"common  Christianity."  And  as  you  declare  that  "We  need 
the  untrammeled  assistance  of  all  our  friends,"  p.  14,  then  tru- 
ly the  Rev.  Mr.  P.  of  the  1st  Congregational  Church,  in  Cincin- 
nati, and  Rev.  Mr.  W.  of  the  1st  Presbyterian  Church,  may 
henceforth  exchange  pulpits  in  this  day  of  united  division! !  I 
will  here  advertise  you  thatas  our  church  has  become  so  corrupt, 
like  the  church  at  Corinth,  as  to  be  incapable  of  exercising  dis- 
cipline; and  as  union  upon  the  compromise  of  truth  and  error  is 
to  be  the  standing  order  of  the  day — there  are  some  who  believe 
that  a  compromise  has  been  made  between  the  Miami  Universi- 
ty and  Lane  Seminary.  Is  this  so?  Is  the  Seminary  to  send 
literary  students  to  the  University,  and  the  University  to  send 
theological  students  to  the  Seminary?  Are  these  institutions 
thus  "to  play  into  each  other's  hands?"  The  public  and  the 
church  have  a  right  to  an  explicit  answer.  Not  that  I  claim  to 
be  the  public  or  the  church,  nor  have  I  been  appointed  to  ask  the 
question.  But  you  ought  to  know  what  the  belief  of  some,  and 
not  a  few,  is  on  this  subject,  and  if  the  belief  is  ill  founded,  I 
think  you  ought  to  disabuse  the  University  from  the  odium  of 
such  a  suspicion. 

You  have  laid  down  a  "general  principle,"  and  applied  it  to 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  namely:  that  "Mutual  confession  of 
equal  corruptions,  and  equal  apostacies,"  must  be  "the  broad  ba- 
sis, the  spirit  of"  our  "union,"  page  3,  4.  I  stop  not  to  in- 
quire whether  this  "general  principle"  is  at  all  contained  in 
your  text.  I  have  not  sagacity  enough  to  see  it  there.  Nor  can 
I  discover  it  in  your  references,  on  p.  14.  But  if  you  adhere  to 
this  principle,  the  Presbyterian  Church  already  divided,  can  ne- 
ver be  united. 

Can  any  man,  who  fears  God  and  loves  the  truth,  make  "con- 
fession of  equal  corruptions  and  equal  apostacies,"  with  those 
who  propagate  heresy  among  us?  Can  any  Presbytery  or  Sy- 
nod, adhering  to  the  doctrines  and  order  of  the  church,  make 
such  confession,  when,  by  the  influence  of  Arminian  and  Pela- 
gian heresies,  all  their  efforts  to  maintain  truth  and  order  are  par- 
alyzed? Take  your  own  text — can  Judah,  who  maintained  the 
true  worship  of  God,  confess  "equal  corruptions  and  equal  apos- 
tacies" with  Israel,  who  set  up  the  calves  at  Dan  and  Bethel? 

I  say,  sir,  if  you  adhere  to  this  "general  principle,"  then  our 
church  is  divided  already  by  a  deep  and  impassable  gulph!  There 
are  not  a  few  who  would  sutler  all  the  tortures  of  the  inquisition 
sooner  than  make  "mutual  confession  of  equal  corruptions,  and 
equal  apostacies,"  with  men  whom  they  know  to  be  corrupters 
of  the  word  of  God  and  the  discipline  of  his  house. 

If  we  have  no  other  basis  of  union  than  such  "mutual  confes- 


12 

sions,"  there  never  can  be  union.  If  all  honest  men  -and  all 
knaves  are  to  come  together  on  the  ground  of  "mutual  confes- 
sion of  equal  corruptions,"  then  light  and  darkness  can  have 
fellowship — Christ  and  Belial  concord. 

Page  18,  you  have  recommended  a  course  of  reading,  to  which 
no  one  will  probably  object,  and  such  a  course  might  be  profita- 
ble to  some  who  have  not  taken  it.  But  what  is  the  utility  of 
such  a  course  of  reading?  The  reader  might  gain  some  knowl- 
edge of  ecclesiastial  history,  by  reviewing  parts  of  the  state  of  the 
church,  in  the  progress  of  the  reformation,  when  every  thing  but 
the  Word  of  God,  was  in  a  revolutionary,  fluctuating,  and  unset- 
tled state — when  a  corrupt  King  was  conniving  at  Popery,  and 
a  reforming  Parliament  was  calling  in  the  aid  of  the  Scots  to  set- 
tle affairs  both  in  church  and  state — when  high  and  low  Episco- 
palians, high  and  low  Presbyterians,  Independents  and  Erastians, 
were  endeavoring  to  settle  the  standards  of  the  Church,  to  suit 
their  several  parties.  Suppose  the  reader  should  discover,  as 
you  have  done,  that  Owen  and  Baxter,  who  never  professed  to 
belong  to  the  same  party,  differed  in  theology — suppose  he 
should  find  out  that  Twiss,  and  Harle,  and  Laud,  and  Usher,  dif- 
fered, when  nothing  was  decided  but  the  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant,  and  when  every  man  was  required  to  swallow  this  enor- 
mous pill,  however  revolting  it  might  be  to  his  conscience,  would 
that  be  a  good  reason  for  Presbyterians  now  to  differ  in  theological 
opinions,  when  they  have  a  well  defined  and  settled  system,  which 
has  been  adopted  by  them  all  as  the  confession  of  their  faith?  You 
might.as  well  request  us  to  read  the  lives  of  Toplady  and  Wesley, 
of  Hervey  and  Fletcher,  of  Dr.  Mason  and  Bishop  Hobart,  in 
order  to  learn  how  widely  Presbyterians  may  at  this  day  differ 
and  yet  all  agree!  Your  plea  for  union  is  as  unsatisfactory  as 
your  assumptions  are  unfounded.  You  think  very  few  are  pre- 
pared to  say  to  what  an  extent  diversity  of  opinions,  as  to  doc- 
trines, exists  among  the  ministers  of  the  Presbyterian  church, 
and  you  add,  "It  is  a  hard  matter,  even  in  this  age  of  inventions, 
to  find  a  new  shade  of  error,  or  a  new  cause  of  theological  dif- 
ference," p.  1 8.  This  is  readily  granted.  Does  it  therefore  fol- 
low that  all  these  shades  of  error  are  to  be  tolerated  in  the  Pres- 
byterian church?  And  because  you  say,  "happy  results  have  been 
realized"  by  the  labors  ofmen  of  different  denominations,  in  a  way 
which  was  not  "contemplated  by  the  leading  men  of  the  West- 
minister Assembly,"  does  it  follow  that  the  purity,  peace,  and 
prosperity  of  the  Presbyterian  church  are  to  be  promoted  by  a 
compromise  which  leaves  every  man  to  teach  and  to  do  "un tram- 
meled" whatever  is  right  in  his  own  eyes? 

This  word  "untrammeled,"  p.  14,  must  remind  many  of  a  distin- 
guished man,  who  disdains  to  be  confined,  by  any  "frame-work" 
around  the  Bible.  You  apprehend  no  "great  danger"  from  a 
variety  of  opinions,  and  plans,  and  operations,  if  all  be  said  and 
done  "in  a  christian  spirit;"  p.  13.     The  wolf  then  has  nothing 


13 

to  do  but  to  put  on  the  sheep's  clothing,  and  go  on  in  our  church 
saying  and  doing  what  he  will. 

Paul,  I  think,  differed  from  you  in  opinion.  He  thought  Satan 
could  be  transformed  into  an  angel  of  light,  and  his  ministers  in- 
to ministers  of  righteousness,  and  he  stood  ready  to  anathema- 
tize an  angel  from  heaven,  if  he  preached  another  gospel,  no 
matter  what  spirit  he  might  manifest. 

In  comparing  page  13,  14  and  18,  I  am  constrained  to  think 
that  you  have  placed  on  a  level  the  "diversity  of  gifts  bestowed 
by  our  Lord  and  Master  upon  his  people"  with  "the  diversity  of 
opinions  as  to  doctrines  which  exist  among  the  ministers  of  the 
Presbyterian  church,  in  the  present  generation."  If  this  is  not 
your  meaning,  then  your  whole  argument  is  inconclusive.  If  this 
be  your  meaning,  then  I  have  no  language  to  express  my  sur- 
prise and  regret. 

Page  9,  you  have  given  us  a  picture  of  what  you  call  "Amer- 
ican Presby  terianism."  I  shall  not  undertake  to  point  out  either 
its  beauties  or  defects,  at  present,  but  just  say,  that  it  appears  to 
me  to  be  thrown  in,  like  the  Adhering  Act  of  the  last  General 
Assembly,  "an  unabating  attachment  to  the  standards  of  our 
church" — i.  e.  a  passport  to  heresij  in  the  wholesale.  Far  be  it  from 
me  to  charge  the  General  Assembly  or  Dr.  Bishop  with  heresy. 
I  believe  they  have  had  their  share  in  giving  passports  to  here- 
ticks. 

We  are  told,  Eccl.  i.  9,  that  "There  is  no  new  thing  under  the 
sun;"  and  you  have  told  us,  "it  is  hard  to  find  a  new  shade  of  er- 
ror, or  a  new  cause  of  theological  difference."  Yet  there  is  one 
thing  new  and  strange  to  me,  that  such  a  man  as  Dr.  Bishop, 
whose  praise  is  so  extensive  in  the  churches — whose  talents  are 
unquestioned — and  whose  character  has  so  long  been  above  sus- 
picion, should  deliberately  compose,  solemnly  preach,  and  grave- 
ly publish  such  a  sermon  as  the  one  now  before  me.  Truly  "the 
gold  has  become  dim,  and  the  fine  gold  changed." 

But,  sir,  neither  schemes  of  unnatural  mixture,  nor  the  broad 
mantle  of  modern  charity,  can  screen  from  merited  rebuke  the 
abuses  which  have  obtained  in  the  "high  places"  of  the  Presby- 
terian church. 

You  tell  us,  p.  1 8,  "Baxter  and  Owen  are  readily  appealed  to, 
by  almost  every  minister  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  as  standards 
of  correct  theological  opinions."  This  is  also  new  tome.  What! 
quote  Owen  and  Baxter  as  standards,  when  you  tell  us  they 
"differed  in  their  explanations  of  some  of  the  most  important  doc- 
trines of  the  Westminister  Confession!"  No,  sir,  ministers  of  the 
Presbyterian  church,  of  good  sense  and  honesty,  never  quote 
Owen,  nor  Baxter,  nor  Witherspoon,  nor  Davies,  as  standards, 
but  they  bring  the  writings  of  these  men  to  the  standards  of  our 
church,  and  consider  them  worthy  of  regard  only  so  far  as  they 
agree  with  these.  So,  I  will  gladly  quote  Dr.  Bishop.  In  your 
"Apology  for  Calvinism,"  which  you  published  against  the  Ar- 


14 

minian  tenets  of  the  Springfield  Presbytery,  you  said,  "To  warn 
and  fortify  their  people  against  these  errors,  is  the  incumbent 
duty  of  those  who  serve  in  the  sacred  office."  Instead  of  read- 
ing "Heber's  life  of  Jeremy  Taylor,"  to  discover  how  men  differed 
in"the  Westminister  age,"  I  have  read  your  excellent  "Apology 
for  Calvinism,"  in  which  you  ably  expose  the  Arminian  errors, 
and  shew  clearly  that  "if  our  notions  on  the  atonement  be  either 
false  in  themselves,  or  confused  and  imperfect,  they  will  con- 
taminate and  mislead  us  in  every  other  article  of  the  Christian 
faith."  And  you  justly  feared  that  they  who  had  adopted  the 
Arminian  notion  of  a  "universal  purchase,"  would  soon  deny 
every  essential  doctrine  of  the  gospel.  You  have  lived  to  see 
that  your  fears  were  not  groundless.  You  ably  defended  the 
use  of  creeds  and  confessions,  the  doctrine  of  the  Covenants,  the 
total  inability  of  fallen  man,  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  made  for 
the  elect  only,  and  regeneration,  not  by  moral  suasion,  but,  by 
the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Since  the  publication  of  your 
Apology,  you  have  seen  the  wild-fire  and  the  wild-water  of  Bar- 
ton W.  Stone  and  Alexander  Campbell — the  wild  dancing  of  the 
Shakers,  and  the  Arminianism  of  the  Cumberlands  desolating  the 
churches  of  the  West.  You  have  lived  to  see  new  men  and  new 
measures  creeping  in  and  starting  up  among  ourselves;  and  by 
Arminian  and  Pelagian  heresies,  dividing  our  churches  and  Pres- 
byteries from  Newburyport  to  Marion.  And  where  is  Dr.  Bishop 
found,  April  23d,  1833?  In  the  2d  Presbyterian  church,  in  the 
city  of  Cincinnati,  on  a  special  occasion,  by  special  appoint- 
ment, preaching  a  plea  for  union,  which  really  appears  to  me,  to 
annihilate  the  use  of  all  creeds  and  confessions,  and  leave  every 
man  "untrammeled,"  to  preach  whatever  opinions,  and  pursue 
whatever  plans  may  seem  right  in  his  own  eyes.  This,  sir,  is  a 
subject  of  deep  regret.  You  and  your  friends,  I  am  informed, 
have  been  engaged  in  special  prayer  for  me.  This  was  kind, 
and  as  far  as  you  prayed  right,  I  hope  the  Lord  has  heard  you 
and  will  answer  in  mercy.  Be  assured,  my  respected  friend  and 
brother,  that  I  have  not  forgotten  you  in  my  imperfect  addresses  at 
a  throne  of  Grace.  I  do  hope*you  will  take  my  plainness  as  the 
greatest  proof  of  my  sincere  friendship,  and  believe  me  with 
much  esteem,  your's  affectionately, 

J.  L.  WILSON. 


i 


>f 


fr 


